Talk:Brick

From PNA/Engineering

• Brick could use some major expansion. The content that is there looks good, but there's a lot that can be said about the history, usage, and comparative usage of the venerable brick that I'm sure someone could add. Courtland 05:46, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

I added the attention tag because the article is very short for such an important topic. Compare the German article, for example. Burschik 14:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well in part that is because you missed that User:194.72.50.155 deleted several section in the process of vandalising the article. They are now restored, but the basic point that more could be said is still valid. -- Solipsist 16:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Expansion request

• I came to this article looking for information on why there are so many brick buildings in the Eastern U.S. -- Beland 23:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• It would also be nice to have illustrations of the various types of brick. I see several kinds inside and outside buildings in Boston, but I'm not sure how they correspond to the types described in the article. -- Beland 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason for this brick page is that usually the polytheistic hydraulic civilizations of Pre-Roman mediterranean times were highly dependant on the collection of clay, for the manufacture of bricks. This process in itself inspires many otherwise basic societies to form a more cohesive division of labor, as both clay pits, brickworks and the thresher (to collect the stalks of wheat to mix with clay) were needed for the finished product. A notable saying back in the days of egypt was, roughly translated, "I need more bricks for my Mustaba, how come there arent enough bricks?" which was usually responded with "You fool! You need a bricklayers Guild first"

I agree, bricks have a long and fascinating history, I work at a bricklayers union in flordia theres all sort of diffrent kinds of bricks there should be more information

"So many brick buildings in the Eastern U.S." as opposed to where? If you're comparing it to the West Coast, the reason there are fewer brick buildings in the West is that they don't survive earthquakes well. Fasrad 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Scope of article

Perhaps it might be better to limit the scope of this article to bricks of the fired-earth variety. Including concrete bricks, concrete blocks and sand-lime bricks in the article is going to make things very confusing. How do we feel about this? Regards, Nick. Nick 10:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC). Added later: by the way, look at the size of the stocks those guys in the picture are holding, I've never seen clay bricks of that size, it must have been a two-handed job laying them. Nick 10:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But sand-lime bricks and concrete bricks are still bricks. Where should they go? Meggar 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be nice to know about the different types of mortar (: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.63.253 (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions

Reading this article, I noticed several conflicting statements about the standard brick sizes, two of which more or less claimed to be universal. I am sure that these are simply standards in different places, and if anyone knows, this should probably be mentioned alongside those statements. Falcon 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to M.Hoptins for removing the contradiction. Falcon 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

units of strength

The use of English units to describe american bricks but metric units to describe british ones seems inconsistent and makes comparisons diffcult.

Dubious tag

Hi all, There seems to be some confusion:

• The introduction describes bricks as "artifical stone" (not the best description but there you go)
• The article describes the firing of bricks
• There is a link to a separate article on mud bricks.

Yet there is mention of sun dried bricks. Now either this reference should be removed or better explanation is needed about the fundamental difference between sun dried and kiln fired bricks ThanxTheriac 23:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole introduction is dubious. How about replacing it with:

A brick is a block of ceramic material used in masonry construction and sized to be layed with one hand using mortar. Meggar 06:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Meggar. Yes I'd go for your description, though maybe include an internal link to sundried bricks. ThanxTheriac 09:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yours is a much more appropriate intro. Please go ahead. --Jrsnbarn 11:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

History

One area I'm interested in that seems to be little covered in the literature is the history of use of bricks in England, which possibly parallels use on the continent and even America.

I have this theory that until machine made bricks became common (when? around 1850) along with the necessary transport, hand made bricks would be made on site. This was a time-consuming business ? and where stone was plentiful it was preferred (In the USA timber?) In the Derwent Valley in England the demand for stone for factories and factory housing and railway architecture was such that its price rose quickly leading to the use of hand made brick for some smaller dwellings.

Another thing that interests me is the practice of soot-washing to tone the colour down, and when it ended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.83.72 (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Wire-cut bricks took over a lot later than 1850. Even in 1890s on-site handmades were standard practice. Tabby (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman brick

Anyone know anything about bricks? An article is needed on Roman brick. It is a flat horizontal brick, it was often employed by Frank Lloyd Wright and other Prairie School architects. IvoShandor 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

UK Brick history

"In the United Kingdom, bricks have been used in construction for centuries. Until recently, many houses were built almost entirely from red bricks. This use is particularly common in areas of northern England and some outskirts of London, where rows of terraced houses were rapidly and cheaply built to house local workers[citation needed]. These houses have survived to the present day. Although many houses in the UK are now built using a mixture of concrete blocks and other materials, many houses are skinned with a layer of bricks on the outside for aesthetic appeal."

The great majority of our housing stock is all brick. Other types are minorities by comparison. New construction typically uses brick outer leaf and block inner to reduce costs, with some cheaper houses using an outer leaf that mixes zones of brick with rendered block.

Terraces are popular in almost all areas of the country, and neither terraces nor all-brick construction is restricted to the areas mentioned.

Many terraces were cheaply built, but also many weren't. While terracing is a cost cutting approach, it is by no means restricted to low quality or low cost housing. There are plenty of grand terraces about.

Finally, old soft (mostly Victorian) bricks are of much lower strength than modern brick types. They can be cut into by rubbing with a fingernail. I dont know what their N rating is, but the article's strength generalisation could do with including a suitable figure for these very common bricks. Tabby (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional UK Brick History

Daniel Defoe wrote in 1726 in The Complete English Tradesman (Chapter III):

A brickmaker being hired by a brewer to make some bricks for him at his country-house, wrote to the brewer that he could not go forward unless he had two or three loads of spanish, and that otherwise his bricks would cost him six or seven chaldrons of coals extraordinary, and the bricks would not be so good and hard neither by a great deal, when they were burnt.

The brewer sends him an answer, that he should go on as well as he could for three or four days, and then the spanish should be sent him: accordingly, the following week, the brewer sends him down two carts loaded with about twelve hogsheads or casks of molasses, which frighted the brickmaker almost out of his senses. The case was this:-The brewers formerly mixed molasses with their ale to sweeten it, and abate the quantity of malt, molasses, being, at that time, much cheaper in proportion, and this they called spanish, not being willing that people should know it. Again, the brickmakers all about London, do mix sea-coal ashes, or laystal-stuff, as we call it, with the clay of which they make bricks, and by that shift save eight chaldrons of coals out of eleven, in proportion to what other people use to burn them with, and these ashes they call spanish.

Further in the Chapter:

A person goes into a brickmaker's field to view his clamp, and buy a load of bricks; he resolves to see them loaded, because he would have good ones; but not understanding the goods, and seeing the workmen loading them where they were hard and well burnt, but looked white and grey, which, to be sure, were the best of the bricks, and which perhaps they would not have done if he had not been there to look at them, they supposing he understood which were the best; but he, in the abundance of his ignorance, finds fault with them, because they were not a good colour, and did not look red; the brickmaker's men took the hint immediately, and telling the buyer they would give him red bricks to oblige him, turned their hands from the grey hard well-burnt bricks to the soft sammel[Note 9] half-burnt bricks, which they were glad to dispose of, and which nobody that had understood them would have taken off their hands.

[Note 9]

[Sammel is a term of art the brickmakers use for those bricks which are not well burnt, and which generally look of a pale red colour, and as fair as the other, but are soft.]

From Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14444/14444-h/14444-h.htm#CHAPTER_III

Not sure where to place this on the main page, so I shall cement it here for the time being. Tgalati4 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Tgalati4

frog

is it posssible that the term frog has been borrowed from the horses hoof terminology because of its similar shape.Frog bieng the under side which often collects stones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.177.83 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• ? Philly jawn (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Buff brick

What is Buff brick and what is pompeian brick? Philly jawn (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

this edit What I have removed have no inline sources nor sources rendered in the paragraph itself. May I humbly ask what sourced material I have removed from the article? Also, I may not be familiar with the jrank source, I checked the bible sources and it is correct. The Chinese sources is a newspaper site, I can provide another source stating the same thing. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 00:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin of use of fly ash as raw material

This article mentions: "In 2007 a new type of brick was invented, based on fly ash, a by-product of coal power plants."
That is at least several years off, since the 2005 yearly report of the (Dutch) Vliegasunie (Fly ash Union) mentions (PDF) a use of fly-ash as raw material for bricks of 28,318 tonnes in 2004 (and 50,656 tonnes in 2005) - and that's just the fly ash of Dutch origin. Consequently the invention of bricks made from fly-ash must be 2004 at the latest or (probably) even earlier. I'll keep looking to see if I can find earlier references. JavaWoman (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Earliest Bricks

This article claims that the earliest mention of bricks is in the book of exodus: "Bricks dated 10,000 years old were found in the Middle East, and the earliest mention of brick making was found in the Bible (besides Genesis 11:3: "... let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and lime had they for mortar.") in Exodus 1:14; 5:4-19."

This fact may support the hypothesis that the bible is the earliest reference to bricks (book of exodus was written around 1400BC); However, the events described in The Book of Exodus are purely mythical and do not accurately portray any actual events. Statements like "These records showed the Israelites made bricks for their Egyptian rulers with earth and straw" are completely spurious since, outside of legendary accounts in Exodus, there is NO historical evidence that the Israelites ever had Egyptian rulers.

Also, the reference used [reference 2] conflates legendary portrayal and historical fact, and as a result I'm not sure it is the best place to use as a reference for the "10,000 years." Furthermore, I could not find any others to support this. Is this statement actually true?

I've also removed most of the long-winded and irrelevant bible quote.

Snarfherder (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)